Graduate Council Meeting Minutes
March 3, 2010
GBB 202, 12:10-1:00 p.m.
Members Present: C. Anderson, R. Bolton, D. Erickson, L. Frey, J. Hirstein, J. Hunt, E.
Hurd, M. McGuirl, N. Moisey, G. Quintero, C. VonReichert, C. Winkler
Members Absent/Excused: C. Palmer
Ex-officio members Present: S. Ross
The meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m.
The 2/24/10 minutes were amended and approved.
Communications
IIP candidates
 Potential IIP students have requested to meet with the Chair of the IIP Admissions
Committee prior to the April 1st deadline. One of the applicants is a resubmission
from the fall. The students have already met either with Associate Provost Brown
or Professor Ross. It would be helpful for the students to have a clear
understanding of expectations. The meeting is not intended to be a pre-review.
Professor Frey will send her availability to Professor Ross.
The IIP Oversight Committee would like to hear from the IIP Admission
Committee Chairs, both current and previous regarding whether meeting with the
students is useful. Another suggestion was for potential IIP students’ committee
chairs to be invited to the IIP Admissions Committee meeting. It is apparent that
these students are not getting appropriate guidance. The students’ committee
chair should be reviewing the application prior to submission.

The Bertha Morton nomination form is still available on the Graduate School’s
web page. Students’ personal statements are limited to one page. Colleges,
Schools, and Departments should establish internal procedures to determine
which students to nominate. In spring of 2008 Graduate Council reassessed the
number of awards allocated to programs and the allocation formula was revised.
The deadline for nominations is Friday, March 5th.
Business Items
Dual Listing Proposal
 The first and second (one abstention) recommendations were approved by the
Council. The workgroup will define how to proceed with co-convening
guidelines. The committee charged with developing guidelines should have a
broad campus representation. There are other mechanisms that can meet the needs
of programs that currently use 300 UG courses. The History program no longer
has a need for 300 level courses to be UG.
The 50% rule will need to be revisited given that many 500 level courses may be
comparable to the 400 UG courses. Should current 500 level courses be
transitioned to 600
The third recommendation will be voted on next week. It was suggested that it be
amended to include the establishment of a standing committee charged with the
annual assessment and report to the Graduate Council. This could be the same
committee that develops the co-convening guidelines.
1. Develop guidelines for co-convening courses
 Develop annual assessment process for UG4XX and co-convening courses
 Revise course forms to indicate co-convening status
 If we vote yes, need to set up sub-committee
2. Change all UG3XX courses to U3XX listing
 If we vote yes today, send to Faculty Senate
3. Discuss the future of the UG system. We propose to:
 Continue to accept both UG and co-convening proposals
 Annually assess both systems
 Annually assess whether maintaining both systems is good for UM and act
accordingly if and when a clear vision emerges
The meeting was adjourned at 1:03 p.m.